One Mister Too Many, Portico

[John_Hannah]

In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA.  If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.

I do believe that those Missourians who were "vested" (with 5 years of previous enrollment) were permited to remain. Many of those are now receiving pension benefits. Perhaps your friend was referring to health benefits, which would cease if their congregation left Missouri.

I know former AELC pastors who are getting pension benefits. No doubt, Richard John Neuhaus did. "Some of my best friends...."


Peace, JOHN

[Brian Stoffregen]

As does the New York Times 

The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.

I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.

[Steven Tibbetts]

In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA.  If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.

I've been hearing that for over some 30 years at least.

One of my colleagues is almost proud to be the first LCMS pastor removed from the rolls in that time. But shortly before he turned 65 came a nice letter from the Concordia Plans, reporting the pension benefits he would soon be receiving from them.  It's not very much, but he is receiving his vested benefits.

And considering that he had moved several times in the intervening years without notifying the Plans...

Pax, Steven+

[John_Hannah]

As does the New York Times 

The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.

I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.

Not a LCMS rule that I know about. If it were, I would ignore it as yet another one not confessionally grounded.

In any event, the New York Times is not concerned about confessional propriety (thank God, since their confession would not likely be Lutheran) but English usage. And since "Rev. Smith" is not correct English, they are finding it convenient and correct to write "Pastor Smith." "The Rev. Mr. Smith" is also correct.


Peace, JOHN

[John Mundinger]

In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA.  If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.

I've been hearing that for over some 30 years at least.

One of my colleagues is almost proud to be the first LCMS pastor removed from the rolls in that time. But shortly before he turned 65 came a nice letter from the Concordia Plans, reporting the pension benefits he would soon be receiving from them.  It's not very much, but he is receiving his vested benefits.

And considering that he had moved several times in the intervening years without notifying the Plans...

Pax, Steven+

Pastor Tibbets - when did your colleague actually retire?  I'm certain threats that way were made.  It could well be that someone in St. Louis figured out that they could not follow through on them.  As I noted above, the person who spoke to me about it retired rather than putting the threats to the test.  Younger pastors likely would have outlived the threat.

[Charles_Austin]

A threat? From a Lutheran church pension board? OMG! Who could imagine such a thing?!! 

[Richard Johnson]

For several years, my Lutheran Forum magazine and Forum Letter arrived addressed to "Mr. Charles Austin."

No doubt that's what you put on your subscription paperwork. Trust me, ALPB does not have the staff to research the ecclesiastical standing of our millions of subscribers.

[Richard Johnson]

Had a conversation yesterday with a Presbyterian pastor who have moved from the PCUSA to the EPC. They are so civilized in Presbyterian circles that they actually refer to this as a "transfer" from one church body to another. Different polity, I know, but rather more courteous that the ELCA boilerplate telling NALC pastors they should no longer wear collars or refer to themselves by ecclesiastical titles.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Pastor Tibbets - when did your colleague actually retire?  I'm certain threats that way were made. 

He still is not retired, but he is of retirement age.  He was quite surprised to receive the letter, too.

As for such "threats," I do not doubt them in the least.  My own personal experience in the wake of the 2009 CWA leads me to suggest that it was the church's officials who spoke them, and not the pension plan officials.  Though indeed, since the Concordia plan was "defined benefit," there was certainly a significant pension "cost" to leaving the Synod and pension officials would have wanted to make that clear.

Pax, Steven+

[Coach-Rev]

In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA.  If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.

THat would only be for those who are active clergy and are foolish enough to leave their pensions there.  BOP made it clear that they no longer wanted non-ELCA contributions at the end of 2011, when they terminated active pension contributions for non ELCA pastors. They "graciously" allowed existing funds to remain with them, but no new contributions could be made.

I honestly know of no one who had to then enroll in a new pension plan who did not immediately transfer their BOP funds over to the new one as well.  And considering the complexities of the tax laws and how BOP never bothered to designate contributions as "housing equity" (a move that Hahn did immediately for its NALC pastors - thus allowing early withdrawal for housing purposes), it was a move that I do not regret.

[Jay Michael]

As does the New York Times 

The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.

I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.

Not a LCMS rule that I know about. If it were, I would ignore it as yet another one not confessionally grounded.

Peace, JOHN

Though not certain ... and having overheard conversations in that same vein ... could it be a reference to Dr. Luther's statement that a man should not preach or administer the sacraments unless he is rightfully called.  If he is not rightfully called, and it is the call of the congregation that makes a man a minister, this practice that is so summarily brushed off as "not confessionally grounded" may indeed merit some discussion.

Many struggle with this ... even in simple situations such as filling a pulpit for a vacationing or ill pastor or a vacant or non calling congregation.

It is a rather broad brush to simply state something is non-confessional simply because of a disagreement ... especially when church fathers ... right or wrong have spoken to the subject.

[John_Hannah]

As does the New York Times 

The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.

I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.

Not a LCMS rule that I know about. If it were, I would ignore it as yet another one not confessionally grounded.

Peace, JOHN

Though not certain ... and having overheard conversations in that same vein ... could it be a reference to Dr. Luther's statement that a man should not preach or administer the sacraments unless he is rightfully called.  If he is not rightfully called, and it is the call of the congregation that makes a man a minister, this practice that is so summarily brushed off as "not confessionally grounded" may indeed merit some discussion.

Many struggle with this ... even in simple situations such as filling a pulpit for a vacationing or ill pastor or a vacant or non calling congregation.

It is a rather broad brush to simply state something is non-confessional simply because of a disagreement ... especially when church fathers ... right or wrong have spoken to the subject.

There was no congregational calling procedure in Luther's time. That's a modern invention, which does not make it bad. But it does mean that Luther did not know about it.


Peace, JOHN

[Birkholz]

As does the New York Times 

The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.

I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.

There is a (vocal) minority who holds this view, but it is neither representative nor official LCMS policy.

[Jay Michael]

As does the New York Times 

The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.

I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.

Not a LCMS rule that I know about. If it were, I would ignore it as yet another one not confessionally grounded.

Peace, JOHN

Though not certain ... and having overheard conversations in that same vein ... could it be a reference to Dr. Luther's statement that a man should not preach or administer the sacraments unless he is rightfully called.  If he is not rightfully called, and it is the call of the congregation that makes a man a minister, this practice that is so summarily brushed off as "not confessionally grounded" may indeed merit some discussion.

Many struggle with this ... even in simple situations such as filling a pulpit for a vacationing or ill pastor or a vacant or non calling congregation.

It is a rather broad brush to simply state something is non-confessional simply because of a disagreement ... especially when church fathers ... right or wrong have spoken to the subject.

There was no congregational calling procedure in Luther's time. That's a modern invention, which does not make it bad. But it does mean that Luther did not know about it.

Peace, JOHN

What then prompted Luther's comment?

[Pastor Ted Crandall]

Had a conversation yesterday with a Presbyterian pastor who have moved from the PCUSA to the EPC. They are so civilized in Presbyterian circles that they actually refer to this as a "transfer" from one church body to another. Different polity, I know, but rather more courteous that the ELCA boilerplate telling NALC pastors they should no longer wear collars or refer to themselves by ecclesiastical titles.

This reminds me of the couple who asked their Lutheran pastor for a letter of transfer to a local Baptist church.  The stunned pastor asked if they did not realize the huge differences in doctrine between Lutheran and Baptist churches. 

"Pastor, you never taught us doctrine."